Would you let your 10 year old get a tattoo?

[JudynTX]

:wakeup



A Georgia mother who was arrested for allowing her 10-year-old to get a tattoo said she had no idea it was illegal for him to get one, even with her consent.

When Chuntera Napier’s son Gaquan Napier asked her if he could get a memorial tattoo for his 12-year-old brother Malik who died after being hit by a car, Napier was touched by the request.

“My son came to me and said, ‘Mom, I want to get a tattoo with Malik on it, rest in peace,’” she told ABC News’ Atlanta affiliate WSBTV. “It made me feel good to know that he wanted his brother on him.”

When Gaquan Napier was asked why he wanted the tattoo, he said, “Because it represents my brother.”

“What do I say to a child who wants to remember his brother? It’s not like he was asking me, ‘Can I get Sponge Bob?” Napier said. “He asked me [for] something that’s in remembrance of his brother. How can I say no?”



More with video:

link (http://http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/georgia-mom-arrested-for-allowing-10-year-old-to-get-tattoo/)

[cantthinkofanything]

Under most circumstances, it's an easy "no". But I have no idea what I'd do in a circumstance where one of my children had passed away. I'd like to think I'd have a level head about it and maybe take some time to think about it but don't know what my mental state would be.

I certainly don't condem the mother in this case.

[benefactor]

Among the other things...the tattoo is going to look pretty stupid when the kid grows up to be an adult.

[mingus]

No. Kid is emotionally immature and instead of wasting money on a tattoo pay for a session with a therapist so he can get thing sorted out.

[DMC]

I would put some belt tattoos on that ass.

[pawe]

If he puts it on his neck line then he will look stupid when he grows up.
I dont think a hidden from view "Malik RIP" tattoo wont look stupid.

[Geezerballer]

Well, she already named the poor bastard "Gaquan" so he'll never get a job anyway.

[Blake]

Under most circumstances, it's an easy "no".

Being illegal makes it it an easy no.

The tattoo parlor should be held accountable as well.

[cantthinkofanything]

Being illegal makes it it an easy no.

The tattoo parlor should be held accountable as well.

Yeah. But the question was "would you let your 10 year old get a tatoo?". My point was that I have no idea what it's like to lose a child and while I think I'd say "no", I really can't say what I'd be thinking.

[mrsmaalox]

Well since she didn't personally do the tattoo herself, I'd think her charges will probably not amt to much more than a CPS investigation; a child endangerment charge might stick if the kid had some kind of complication. But the tattoo artist and shop should definitely be prosecuted to the full extent.

Poor little kid was just trying to honor his brother, it's a shame he doesn't have a parent who could guide him towards something a little more age-appropriate.

[Blake]

Yeah. But the question was "would you let your 10 year old get a tatoo?".

the answer still is being illegal should make it an easy "no".

[cantthinkofanything]

the answer still is being illegal should make it an easy "no".

So, the line you draw about whether things or right or wrong or if you'd do them or not is whether they are legal or not?

In the standard, "Would you steal a loaf of bread if you couldn't feed your family otherwise?", what's your answer?

[Blake]

So, the line you draw about whether things or right or wrong or if you'd do them or not is whether they are legal or not?

You didn't put stipulations on your question.

From a practical standpoint, I'd rather not get arrested for giving my kid a tattoo and there's nothing more to think about after that.

From a deeper practical standpoint, fuck no on letting a 10 year old get a tattoo.
He's just a few years removed from learning to properly wipe his own ass and any costs or problems that may arise come back on me.

When he can get a job, pay for it with his own money and take full responsibility for it, more power to him.


In the standard, "Would you steal a loaf of bread if you couldn't feed your family otherwise?", what's your answer?

If choice comes down to letting my family starve to death or stealing bread, I'm going with the lesser of the tough choices and stealing the bread.

Does this kid need a tattoo to survive?

[marini martini]

No!

She should have let Gaquan release a balloon to the sky that said "RIP Malik".

[cantthinkofanything]

From a practical standpoint, I'd rather not get arrested for giving my kid a tattoo and there's nothing more to think about after that.

From a deeper practical standpoint, fuck no on letting a 10 year old get a tattoo.
He's just a few years removed from learning to properly wipe his own ass and any costs or problems that may arise come back on me.


I'm not arguing any of that but the orignal question was absolute. And my point was that if my kid died and my other kid wanted to get a tatoo to honor him, I don't know how fucked up my mind would be and how touched I would be. Personally, I think 99.9% chance I say "no". But I can't put myself in the shoes of someone who this has happened to and say with certainty what I would do. And it's not clear if the lady knew it was illegal or not. She should have know. But if she didn't the tattoo artist should have informed her and refused the work.



If choice comes down to letting my family starve to death or stealing bread, I'm going with the lesser of the tough choices and stealing the bread.

Does this kid need a tattoo to survive?


No, obviously not. I just posed the question because your previous answer


the answer still is being illegal should make it an easy "no".

inferred that if something was illegal, you wouldn't do it on that basis alone.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

It's a nice sentiment but really this comes down to letting a ten year old make a decision with permanent results. No real life shattering implications to it, but it's still an example of exercising poor parental judgment IMO. Get some memorial jewelry or something else and in 7-8 years if he's still convinced he wants it then he can do it with absolute confidence that he won't regret it later.

What I'm really baffled by is who the hell would agree to do the work? It's obviously not a situation where you can use the "they said he was 18" defense. The story only mentions that "the artist is under investigation". My mind would jump to it being a family friend or relative. I don't understand how a total stranger (assuming they are a legit professional) would agree to put ink on a ten year old kid.

[manufan10]

http://l1.yimg.com/cv/ip/ap/default/120120/012012tattoo_uni.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYFRHp8xjuis6E0jw6MBMqXRXWEjVx-U7gf7fIRfoKBCjHCTzZ

It's Buckwheat!

[cantthinkofanything]

It's a nice sentiment but really this comes down to letting a ten year old make a decision with permanent results. No real life shattering implications to it, but it's still an example of exercising poor parental judgment IMO. Get some memorial jewelry or something else and in 7-8 years if he's still convinced he wants it then he can do it with absolute confidence that he won't regret it later.

Again, not disagreeing. But wondering why it's OK for parents to get their 2 year old's ear pierced but it's not OK to let a 10 year old get a tattoo. Yes, the tattoo is permanent but in the case of the earrings, the child doesn't even know what's being done. The charge was misdemeanor cruelty so I'm not sure that it contemplates the permanence of the act.


What I'm really baffled by is who the hell would agree to do the work? It's obviously not a situation where you can use the "they said he was 18" defense. The story only mentions that "the artist is under investigation". My mind would jump to it being a family friend or relative. I don't understand how a total stranger (assuming they are a legit professional) would agree to put ink on a ten year old kid.

Think I found the explanation:


A Georgia law from 2010 states, “It shall be unlawful for any person to tattoo the body of any person under the age of 18, except a physician or osteopath.”


She probably had it done at the peditrician. The investigation should clear everyone.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Again, not disagreeing. But wondering why it's OK for parents to get their 2 year old's ear pierced but it's not OK to let a 10 year old get a tattoo. Yes, the tattoo is permanent but in the case of the earrings, the child doesn't even know what's being done. The charge was misdemeanor cruelty so I'm not sure that it contemplates the permanence of the act.

Wasn't sure exactly what the charge was. That does seem a little strange. I'm actually in agreement with you about the piercing stuff. I don't understand why in the hell people do it that young either.

[cantthinkofanything]

Wasn't sure exactly what the charge was. That does seem a little strange. I'm actually in agreement with you about the piercing stuff. I don't understand why in the hell people do it that young either.

and according to some, there's even a bigger travesty largely ignored...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186368&highlight=circumcision

[Blake]

Again, not disagreeing. But wondering why it's OK for parents to get their 2 year old's ear pierced but it's not OK to let a 10 year old get a tattoo. Yes, the tattoo is permanent but in the case of the earrings, the child doesn't even know what's being done. The charge was misdemeanor cruelty so I'm not sure that it contemplates the permanence of the act.

The reason we went with having my daughter get her ears pierced at the age of 1 was to save her from getting it done later. Two quick ear punches and it was done. She didn't even cry.

When she was 6, she said she didn't want to wear ear rings any more. Explained she'll have to get it pierced later, but ok. The ear has since closed up. Oh well.

[mrsmaalox]

The reason we went with having my daughter get her ears pierced at the age of 1 was to save her from getting it done later. Two quick ear punches and it was done. She didn't even cry.

When she was 6, she said she didn't want to wear ear rings any more. Explained she'll have to get it pierced later, but ok. The ear has since closed up. Oh well.

To save her what? Time? Money? I let my daughter get her ears pierced at age 12, when she asked for it and had saved up the money to pay for it herself. And it was also 2 quick ear punches and it was done. I think it's fine for people to decide to get their kid's ears pierced as infants, I just don't understand how there is some kind of advantage to it.

Btw, my mom was one who had it done as an infant, but never cared for it, never wore earrings and always hated the 2 little marks on her ears. So she didn't let me have it done until age 12, and I've never regretted it and always worn earrings.

[Blake]

To save her what? Time? Money?

the fear

my wife had said she wanted ear rings badly as a teen but was terrified of getting it done and didn't want her to go through that.

good enough reason for me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The child and mother are both very willing yet we get to decide for them something that has no impact on us?

[mrsmaalox]

the fear

my wife had said she wanted ear rings badly as a teen but was terrified of getting it done and didn't want her to go through that.

good enough reason for me.

Well I suppose.....save her some possible fear later OR possibly force her to deal with something she doesn't want later. Seems like the typical decisions we parents are faced with constantly, huh? :lol

[Viva Las Espuelas]

the fear
Ah, so like circumsion. Got ya

[Blake]

The child and mother are both very willing yet we get to decide for them something that has no impact on us?

I'd wager the vast majority of 10 year olds have no clue what getting a tattoo means and in this particular case, I think society has an obligation to save the kid from his ignorant mother.

[Blake]

Well I suppose.....save her some possible fear later OR possibly force her to deal with something she doesn't want later. Seems like the typical decisions we parents are faced with constantly, huh? :lol

pretty much.

[cantthinkofanything]

I'd wager the vast majority of 10 year olds have no clue what getting a tattoo means and in this particular case, I think society has an obligation to save the kid from his ignorant mother.

Shit. Don't open that can of worms.

[z0sa]

10 year olds will grow quite a bit, fucking their pretty tattoo all up. Mom should know better.

[cantthinkofanything]

no

unless they calf tats

and there it is

[mrsmaalox]

no

unless they calf tats

:lol Excellent!

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Who had #31 in the betting pool? Honestly when I didn't see c*** ***s on the first page I thought we might go the whole thread without it.

[DMC]

Why not just tell the kid "look, when you reach puberty and can make your own decisions, your brother will likely still be just as dead, so wait till then, now go draw him a nice crayon picture"

[CosmicCowboy]

As to the original question, no, I wouldn't approve it.

As someone else said, assuming their laws there are like the laws in Texas, the artist should have told the mother it was illegal for him to give the kid a tat even if she approved.

THAT being said, I don't think it's the states business whether the kid gets a tat or not.

[JoeChalupa]

No I would not.

[hehateme]

no

unless they calf tats


good god it took that long to get a koriwhat joke in? The man must be losing his charm...

[SA210]

No

[koriwhat]

good god it took that long to get a koriwhat joke in? The man must be losing his charm...

i actually got another tattoo about 3 hrs ago & another about 2 weeks ago.

btw, fuck you all! good day bitches.